Retired RCMP Officer with PTSD Wins Case Against Port Alberni B&B Before BC Human Rights Tribunal
Here’s a perfect example of how to respond to a civil rights infraction under the BC Human Rights Code, by knowing one’s rights, standing one’s ground, and properly documenting one’s case.
Check News reports on the case of a retired RCMP officer who was discriminated against at a Port Alberni B&B because he prepared a cannabis joint inside the establishment, which he has a medical prescription for, before smoking it outside. But I think their title, “Port Alberni inn loses human rights tribunal hearing regarding cannabis”, is wrong; I would rather focus on the side that was right, and the side that won, rather than making the perpetrator look like a victim.
I invite you to read the original article before proceeding any further, because the rest of this article is a commentary regarding how to victim reacted to the infraction. And while you’re at it, you could also read about my own case and how I’m taking it forward, because the parallels are striking (albeit less epic).
In one short sentence: the victim did everything exactly right.
For starters, he knew the law, he knew his rights, and he backed himself up by having a prescription. So even before the events took place he was already in a good position to defend himself, and this is very important; a good strategy to respond to a civil rights infraction begins before the offence takes place.
Another thing is that he stood his ground when the establishment called the police (even though it didn’t show up). This is important for two reasons: one is that it presses his psychological advantage, the other is that if the police had shown up there would have been a record and the plaintiff would have had to make statements on record.
Also, he followed up by calling them after the fact trying to reach out to them, and even returned to the scene with documentation supporting his stance. This is showing good will, which is something the court likes to see, while giving the other side more opportunities to compromise themselves, so it’s far from being futile even though it arguably didn’t work.
And he pleaded his case well before the court, whereas the inn might as well not have bothered to show up and meekly plead they have the right to refuse service to anyone for all defence in a discrimination case; a Google search would have shown them they were full of it. Remember: the side that wins a civil rights dispute is the one that gets the most admissible evidence through, while the side that treats a court of law like a court of whining loses.
Last, but not least: he evidently notified the media. This is important too, because a civil rights battle never ends in the courtroom; it is won on the ground, in the court of public opinion.
